|
I could've worded that better. These are all examples of rapid advances in the face of virtually no opposition. Germany's eastern front advance was poorly managed and stalled repeatedly because of it, and stopped in its tracks (literally) the first time they actually had to fight Soviet forces on a similar scale to their own. Patton's a good example, though...I was strictly thinking about German employment. Guderian was a brilliant tactician, nothing more.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Risket posted:Blitzkreig as a tactic was very effective in Operation Barbarossa, and Patton's breakout from the Normandy beach head was effectively a copy of German offensive tactics. In addition, the only reason the Sherman was effective at all was numbers, and the fact that the Tigers were pretty unreliable. The Sherman was a pretty decent tank, and also had good reliability. They were obviously helped greatly by being made in such numbers that the Germans simply couldn't compete with the size of the army (to the point where some American infantry units had more tanks than German Panzer units), but it's a myth that the Shermans were basically just disposable pieces of crap that only succeeded by being thrown en masse into Europe. The only tanks that totally outmatched the early Shermans were Tigers and Panthers (which had major issues with numbers and reliability, as well as other issues like slow turret traverse and a lack of unmagnified optics or periscope for the Panther gunner, which made it really hard for the gunners to spot targets on their own without really specific commands from the commander), and the models with bigger 76mm guns could take out a Tiger from any typical combat range. The Germans also suffered very heavily from poor armor manufacturing that caused virtually all models of their tanks -- Panzer IIIs to Panthers -- to suffer cracks from and popped welds even from non-penetrating shots, to the point where the on-paper armor thickness was lower than the actual effectiveness at protection. Many of the myths about the vehicles came from non-tankers, who wouldn't have firsthand knowledge of how the actual fighting went and were stuck just observing whatever they could. All of the anecdotes of terrified soldiers seeing "invincible" Tigers and Panthers were people like common infantry and medics, while many tankers (especially Soviet ones) just viewed them as another tank, one that should be respected but was ultimately defeatable with proper tactics. Anecdotes and secondhand researchers have thus created the image of swarms of Shermans circling around individual Tigers and Panthers, sacrificing themselves until one of them makes a lucky kill shot through virtually impregnable armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Wasn't a lot of that unreliability due to Jewish laborers sabotaging the poo poo out of them? I think I read in this farm some dude even carved his initials inside ones armor or something
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:Wasn't a lot of that unreliability due to Jewish laborers sabotaging the poo poo out of them? I think I read in this farm some dude even carved his initials inside ones armor or something From what I understand, sabotage wasn't as easy as it would have been for American manufacturing because German manufacturing techniques were slower; workers stayed with one vehicle through its building process, whereas on an assembly line in the US the workers stay at their station and do one task to each vehicle as it passes. In an American system you can gently caress up every vehicle that comes your way, but you have much lower sabotage volume in Germany. I'll dig up the sources when I get home, but I found some very detailed descriptions of the German problems. They had poor armor quality control, likely due to inexperience in making and hardening such thick armor as that of the Tigers, and it was overly hardened until it became brittle. They also had lovely welds, which broke easily. But even early Soviet tests of Panzer IIIs found cracking problems, and tests finding cracked armor was consistent through the war years over multiple models. The Panthers had plenty of issues themselves, like the aforementioned lack of unmagnified gunner sights and the turret actually rotating backwards under gravity if on a steep enough slope. But the biggest problem was that the final drive for the Panthers was (for at least a few years) so badly flawed that it wouldn't even last a few hundred kilometers before being expected to fail. Obviously, this meant that the Panthers weren't at battles as often as they should have been. They were also expensive to transport, as they were fragile enough to require vehicle or train transportation virtually everywhere to avoid straining the final drive too much. And a tank that isn't at the battle, even if it's better in some ways than the enemy tanks, is the worst tank of all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:Wasn't a lot of that unreliability due to Jewish laborers sabotaging the poo poo out of them? I think I read in this farm some dude even carved his initials inside ones armor or something Their unreliability was due in part to the drivetrains on some German tanks being fantastically complex machines for what they were, and later the precipitous drop in quality caused by wartime rush and allied interdiction. Major sabotage by conscript labor is widely rumored, but usually it's hard to find authoritative sources. Usually it's an anecdote about Gramps being narrowly missed by a bomb that had had its explosive fill replaced with a note from Jewish/Polish/Norwegian workers. More common was simply doing a lovely job: pouring concrete too thin, or in a weak mixture, improperly finishing precision parts, loving up welds or drill press holes, and other stuff that's hard to distinguish from starving people being impressed to replace skilled labor. Probably for the best, since suspected saboteurs were hung or sent to a concentration camp. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Germany basically had no molybdenum to use in their steel making process. Like even from the outset. In reality german steel was pretty loving poo poo by literally any metric you could set for it. It didn't matter if the armor could stop a tank round if the armor spalled and turned the crew into loving hamburger anyway. They also lacked tungsten which means their anti-tank shells were severely lacking. Never mind that the Germany arms acquisition process was hilariously inefficient that makes our current system look streamline and efficient Also the Sherman kicked a lot of rear end and the biggest issue they had in Normandy is they severely underestimated the quantities of Panthers they were going to encounter so they delayed the 76mm variant as long as possible because the HE shell was pretty terrible and Shermans were mostly used for infantry support than killing other tanks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I think the history channel programs are partly to blame for that widely held belief that you had to use swarms of Shermans to take out one Tiger. I specifically remember some battle recreation wankfest show doing exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Alright, I'll step on the flaming bag of poo poo. I know I'm trying to bait you into telling me how air superiority planes work. You loving know the difference between mig planes? Sorry comrad. I love America. But seriously, didn't the designer of the tomcat(maybe?) call the newest planes lemons because they had to have the specifications to fit the needs of all the branches? And in the process it sort of does nothing particularly well? I'm not talking about that one lokeehead Martin plane that "only a mother could love" because of the retarded intake thing, I think I'm talking about the other one. Curse my selective memory. And weren't all the eurofighter pilots getting chubbes because they were getting kills on it? What's it called..? Furthermore, the discussion on migs were a standin for talking about design philosophy. I think if you changed a few words you'd have a pretty functional report. Completely unrelated: what's that drug that Intel people take that gives them lisps? And makes them lovely conversation partners? killmeimmafailure fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
I've also heard Shermans were called Tommy cookers and the Ronson( a lighter) because there's a rumor that they lit the first time every time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
The Russians liked them because they didn't explode violently if they took a hit and allowed the crew to bail out 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
This article includes some links to primary sources detailing the issues with German armor manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
the stug and the pak40 were actually the most deadly threats to allied tankers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Bolow posted:The Russians liked them because they didn't explode violently if they took a hit and allowed the crew to bail out
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Keeping all your ammo and powder in the crew compartment also makes penetrating hits spectacular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGaxZr1ZlAg&t=50s
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Westinghouse engines were selected to power most of the early Navy jets, on the strength of their WWII war contracts. Their early engines were chronically under-powered, which was not uncommon at the time, but they never were able to master compressor design or create a reliable engine control system. As a result, the J34 was underpowered, suffered chronic compressor stalls, and flamed out far too easily. The promised successor, the J40, was cancelled for falling behind schedule and failing to deliver the required performance. Westinghouse engines ended up taking a lot of blame for the failure and deaths associated with the F3H Demon in particular, and Westinghouse left the engine business in the 1960s after losing contracts to GE and P&W. The J34 wasn't the only Navy engine to gently caress up a promising design and kill a bunch of dudes (looking at you, TF30) but being the weak link in so many early Navy programs due to failure to innovate or deliver on time irreparably tarnished the brand. Don't forget the Gutless Cutlass. Pretend I posted the account of the Blue Angels first of this aircraft in its "solo demo" role that it flew with them for like 3 shows total before they retired it because they quickly realized it was going to kill someone (and potentially a whole lot of spectators too). The first performance involves a complete loss of hydraulics in the middle of a "max performance"* climb followed by losing so much altitude that the plane clipped trees at the end of the runway before flaming the left engine out and finally recovering while leaving a flaming trail of hydro in the sky. It sounds like quite a show as long as you weren't directly under the flight path. * "Max performance" by Westinghouse standards. e: Casimir Radon posted:I was watching this documentary one time that showed some Russian tank. Apparently the automated loading mechanism was really prone to mangling members of the crew. "How the Russian Army Chorus gets its soprano section" iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
The f-22 is the cool one that is actually fuckin badass. Which one is the one that can take off vertically? Is that a function that, apart from being badass, is actually useful? What function does an air suppository jet serve when it can do that. Because aren't there mechanical trade offs like loosing lift and everyone dying in that design decision? E: guys get it? I made a poop joke Dunno man. Drones are 4 hover . Planes 4 fite killmeimmafailure fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
FYI I'm pretty sure everyone is going to ignore your posts until you stick to single-sentence, coherent questions and statements. Also maybe pictures ITT?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
 Pictured: A Brazilian active duty tank tank until the mid 90s
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Do they crew it with toddlers? That thing is tiny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Spicy Guacamole posted:Do they crew it with toddlers? That thing is tiny. Its a Sherman, upgraded with 70s era optics and some sloped armor and a smaller, more powerful diesel
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Spicy Guacamole posted:Do they crew it with flips? There ya go
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
killmeimmafailure posted:The f-22 is the cool one that is actually fuckin badass. Which one is the one that can take off vertically? Is that a function that, apart from being badass, is actually useful? What function does an air suppository jet serve when it can do that. Because aren't there mechanical trade offs like loosing lift and everyone dying in that design decision? The tone of your posts makes me feel like I'm being mocked by a slow child.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
at the date posted:The tone of your posts makes me feel like I'm being mocked by a slow child. Mongo just pawn (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
killmeimmafailure, post your favorite military picture not from activeduty.com
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
elite_garbage_man posted:killmeimmafailure, post your favorite military picture not from activeduty.com Oh I'm not military. I just have lots of friends and family who are/were. I'm disillusioned by college and I'm reading up on a bunch of poo poo so I don't get inappropriately touched if or when I sign up I wanted to do the peace corp, but I'm thinking about trying to be a linguist or something (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
killmeimmafailure, post your favorite military picture not from activeduty.com
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:
You sure that's not based off the M3 Stuart? The hull looks a bit small for it to be from an M4.  killmeimmafailure posted:Oh I'm not military. I just have lots of friends and family who are/were. I'm disillusioned by college and I'm reading up on a bunch of poo poo so I don't get inappropriately touched if or when I sign up Get your degree and then enlist in the Marines. That is definitely the best method for you to make something of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:Its a Sherman, upgraded with 70s era optics and some sloped armor and a smaller, more powerful diesel I dare say you're wrong my good chap. That Brazilian abortion is built on an M3 Stuart light tank chassis. If the Sherman is a BBC, that thing is a TAC.  Road wheels, size, etc give it away...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Thump! posted:You sure that's not based off the M3 Stuart? The hull looks a bit small for it to be from an M4. You beat me to the punch, and related article http://www.milweb.net/features/m3a1_stuart_tank.php
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
This is my favorite Brazilian Stuart upgrade, the X1A: 90mm gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This is my favorite Brazilian Stuart upgrade, the X1A: hmm yes there is no way this was posted in this thread or on this very page in fact Booblord Zagats posted:
ohh...
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Don't forget the Gutless Cutlass. Still, I love the style of the early jet age (because I flew the good parts of it.)    F4D Skyray, powered by the venerable P&W J57.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
 Pictured: A destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
CMD598 posted:Pictured: A self defense destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
CMD598 posted:
Lmbo China son gay. so what fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
 Let's publicly offer Japan a dual-key arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
It's pretty awesome because if the US isn't going to call them on their bullshit, nobody else really can. And we can let them do this kind of thing because if they get out of control we can just nuke them again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:It's pretty awesome because if the US isn't going to call them on their bullshit, nobody else really can. I don't get why the whole "Japan no aircraft carrier for you" thing is a thing anymore. As what is the most reliable ally of the U.S and friends in the area, wouldn't you guys want them to have a badass military? Italy had some weird restrictions but they've been gone forever
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
MegaJoe89 posted:I don't get why the whole "Japan no aircraft carrier for you" thing is a thing anymore. Have you seen Japanese porn? Somewhere deep down you know those people are hosed up on a fundamental level. Can't trust 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Have you seen Japanese porn? Somewhere deep down you know those people are hosed up on a fundamental level. Can't trust 'em. Personally, I just avoid the porn section at Yodobashi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 04:50
|
|